Wow. This sounds like a lot like what happened during the U.S. housing/mortgage crisis, especially in California. The population was heavily centered in cities like L.A. and San Francisco to begin with, and more people flocked to those cities over the years for job opportunities, driving up the demand for housing and housing costs. The problem wasn't a shortage of land or housing. The problem was a lack of affordable housing.
Public transport now is slower and less frequent than it was in the 1940s, but that is because population density in the 40s was much, much higher than it is today because cars were not yet affordable for anyone but the rich. After WW2, the spread of the automobile allowed massive urban sprawl at low densities which led to many of problems we have today.
Densification is an attempt to return to the more sustainable and affordable lifestyle that was promoted in this video!!
Disagree with the assesment of density of Hong Kong. lived there 2 years. Density in HK fosters many opportunities for different social links and social activities. I can sit down for yumcha at 3am in HK, but struggle to get anything after 5 in parts of Sydney. didnt need a car in HK because things were located nearby.Why are we so afraid of density, and excactly who will lose in a densifying city?Is it fear of density or diversity? Or the social and class challenges of diversity?????
PM Rudd good man, he make i rich i have. 10 house now and goverment give me money, he namber 1 man. assie not smart, my children have house for first home byer, get good rent money. Mr rudd numbar 1, you have respect for boss.
(3) Aus's population won't stabilise unless draconian anti-immigration measures are enacted, which aren't on the cards. Therefore land will always be quite precious, since as you've pointed out there's only the east and west coastal strips that could reasonably be intensely urbanised.
In the year 2100 are Aussies going to be living in bungalows 150km west of Sydney??
Densification of cities has nothing to do with property developers. It's desirable from a social, traffic and environmental perspective. You say this isn't the case in Oz - why not, if it's the case everywhere else? Oz's population is expected to hit 32M by 2050. Much of that will end up in Melb+Syd. Where do you think all these people are going to live? WIll Canberra become a new suburb of Sydney?
Densification of Sydney has EVERYTHING to do with developers. Theyve made a fortune building apartments! The average person has to spend 10 times their gross annual income for a median priced house in Sydney due to restricted land releases. In contrast the Victorian State Govt released 90,000 building blocks to help the situation. Of course unless population is stabilized, this will be a never ending problem, just like it is in cities like London that are being ruined by over population.
(1)No it doesn't. Densification is about sustainability - an idea that benefits society, the economy and the environment. So what if developers make money: they would have made money building low-density houses too. (2)Affordability in low density areas is improved by releasing more land; in urban areas it's by more aggressively opening up brownfield and low intensity land to builders so that units can be built faster. If units in Sydney are too expensive then increase supply:build more of them.
The REALITY of densification in SYDNEY is that its about GREED. Apartment development is much more profitable than other housing types in SYDNEY. Developers in collusion with politicians have bought up sites & had them rezoned. Little consideration is given to sustainability, just pack em in. Property speculation is KING. Its been diverting efforts from productive enterprise & with the recession, we are now suffering more than other Aust cities due to this corrupt and UNSUSTAINABLE practice.
This piece of political posturing shows only a highly selective collection of "facts". The views expressed smack of property owners protecting their individual interests, rather than engaging seriously in identifying the future appearance of our cities. Risking accusations of personal attack (not intended at all) I suggest that the age & post-war upbringing of Tony Recsei et al is significant. Regarding the future, best consider the present-day, fuel-cost "flight from surburbia" in America.
What you don't seem to understand by your intellectual posturing is that urban consolidation suits many property owners as it increases their property values enormously - that's what it's all about in Sydney. Check out the comments of a 22 year old posted in Part 4 of this video. They are completely at odds with what you are saying about the age & post-war upbringing of Tony Recsei et al. This policy is a complete disaster for young people and just about everyone else, except for speculators.
Th truth about the rising cost of housing is that it is not about the cost of the house which only goes up slightly with the cost of construction. It is the cost of land that has been driven up to speculative heights by folks who buy for profit and not for use. Ironically the only solution for land speculation is a high tax on land values which both discourages land speculation and drives the cost of land down. I'd rather pay a tax to pay for services than pay huge interest to my banker.
FHOG Wasn't intended to make housing more affordable, it was a concession given to the building industry to offset the introduction of the GST. It succeeded in stimulating demand and pushed prices through the roof. Hand outs won't bring prices down, supply will, c'mon councils and regulators make it easier to build rather than looking after the building industry, take away obstacles for owner builders and the handyman.
Very good comment. The First Home Owner's Grant (FHOG) has been another contributor to inflating property prices, and it has also led to an increased number of mortgage defaults by allowing people to buy properties that they can't afford. This failed policy of the Howard government is now most likely being replaced by an almost equally daft approach by the Rudd government. Of course neither side of politics really wants to face up to the real issues.
Nobody has mentioned the deleterious effects brought forth by unchecked sprawl such congestion, pollution, obesity, and (oh yes, dig this big crux) the strain on water resources!
Who needs reservoirs for drinking when one can't go without keeping those lawns brilliantly green and those cars sparkling clean.
Please look at Part 3 of this video for a response to this question on water usage. Urban consolidation is not good for the environment. More people crammed into a smaller space does not result in environmental benefits. This is a totally misleading argument.
Urban Consolidation is essential, because it is grossly inefficient to continuously spread suburbs out (increasing the need of cars). What we need is for apartments and denser houses to be more desireable. The problem that is almost directly linked is land value. How do you design an apartment building that can be affordable to live in, and have the feel of a house?
Although we'd all like to live in a house there is simply not enough space for everyone.
There is no space problem. Residential property is .4 of 1% in Australia. There are vast well irrigated areas in the northern states. That other countries would die to have.
Totally misleading. By saying only 0.4% of land is built on you make it sound like 99.6% is still available, in fact only a tiny amount of land in Aus could be built on - the rest has no water, roads, is too far away from existing areas, or desert.
You are being miss-leading yourself. We are not saying that at all. In any case, the 3500 kilometre eastern coastal strip from Cairns to Melbourne is quite habitable with the result that many people are being forced to move to these areas. The area south of Brisbane is one of the fastest growing in Australia. As well, during the recent drought weve been running short of water in Sydney & Melbourne. Urban densification will not solve that problem, it will only put it off for a few more years.
You know even if you only inculde the costal strip from Melbourne to Cairns thats still a MASSIVE amount of Land we have,
you have a look at the size of Sydney on google Earth, it would fit hundreds probably thousands of times into the green coastal habital strip all up the east coast
You are absolutely correct. The land shortage argument is completely laughable in relation to Australia. Unfortunately, its young people like you that are being made to suffer because of this speculative greed, and totally misguided urban consolidation fairytale. Wherever possible, every Australian should have the opportunity to live in their own home. Investment should be encouraged in productive industries, not in rampant tax payer subsidised property speculation.
Wow. This sounds like a lot like what happened during the U.S. housing/mortgage crisis, especially in California. The population was heavily centered in cities like L.A. and San Francisco to begin with, and more people flocked to those cities over the years for job opportunities, driving up the demand for housing and housing costs. The problem wasn't a shortage of land or housing. The problem was a lack of affordable housing.
avocate201 3 months ago
Public transport now is slower and less frequent than it was in the 1940s, but that is because population density in the 40s was much, much higher than it is today because cars were not yet affordable for anyone but the rich. After WW2, the spread of the automobile allowed massive urban sprawl at low densities which led to many of problems we have today.
Densification is an attempt to return to the more sustainable and affordable lifestyle that was promoted in this video!!
bambulshakibaei 3 months ago
music too distracting
icanonlybejm 5 months ago
thanks for posting this series.
So far a I am aware, I am the only candidate to call for the removal of the urban boundary noose in the 2010 SA state elections.
STEWARTGLASSnet 2 years ago
Disagree with the assesment of density of Hong Kong. lived there 2 years. Density in HK fosters many opportunities for different social links and social activities. I can sit down for yumcha at 3am in HK, but struggle to get anything after 5 in parts of Sydney. didnt need a car in HK because things were located nearby.Why are we so afraid of density, and excactly who will lose in a densifying city?Is it fear of density or diversity? Or the social and class challenges of diversity?????
littlerabbitish 2 years ago 2
PM Rudd good man, he make i rich i have. 10 house now and goverment give me money, he namber 1 man. assie not smart, my children have house for first home byer, get good rent money. Mr rudd numbar 1, you have respect for boss.
lehong1963 2 years ago
(3) Aus's population won't stabilise unless draconian anti-immigration measures are enacted, which aren't on the cards. Therefore land will always be quite precious, since as you've pointed out there's only the east and west coastal strips that could reasonably be intensely urbanised.
In the year 2100 are Aussies going to be living in bungalows 150km west of Sydney??
spacetweek 2 years ago
Invest in Philippine real estate because prices in Metro Manila are inexpensive compared to other major cities around the world.
skinhead2582 2 years ago
Densification of cities has nothing to do with property developers. It's desirable from a social, traffic and environmental perspective. You say this isn't the case in Oz - why not, if it's the case everywhere else? Oz's population is expected to hit 32M by 2050. Much of that will end up in Melb+Syd. Where do you think all these people are going to live? WIll Canberra become a new suburb of Sydney?
spacetweek 2 years ago
Densification of Sydney has EVERYTHING to do with developers. Theyve made a fortune building apartments! The average person has to spend 10 times their gross annual income for a median priced house in Sydney due to restricted land releases. In contrast the Victorian State Govt released 90,000 building blocks to help the situation. Of course unless population is stabilized, this will be a never ending problem, just like it is in cities like London that are being ruined by over population.
Wildhiland 2 years ago
(1)No it doesn't. Densification is about sustainability - an idea that benefits society, the economy and the environment. So what if developers make money: they would have made money building low-density houses too. (2)Affordability in low density areas is improved by releasing more land; in urban areas it's by more aggressively opening up brownfield and low intensity land to builders so that units can be built faster. If units in Sydney are too expensive then increase supply:build more of them.
spacetweek 2 years ago
The REALITY of densification in SYDNEY is that its about GREED. Apartment development is much more profitable than other housing types in SYDNEY. Developers in collusion with politicians have bought up sites & had them rezoned. Little consideration is given to sustainability, just pack em in. Property speculation is KING. Its been diverting efforts from productive enterprise & with the recession, we are now suffering more than other Aust cities due to this corrupt and UNSUSTAINABLE practice.
Wildhiland 2 years ago
the australian dream, its a dream alright
fungulotualatuarazza 3 years ago
This piece of political posturing shows only a highly selective collection of "facts". The views expressed smack of property owners protecting their individual interests, rather than engaging seriously in identifying the future appearance of our cities. Risking accusations of personal attack (not intended at all) I suggest that the age & post-war upbringing of Tony Recsei et al is significant. Regarding the future, best consider the present-day, fuel-cost "flight from surburbia" in America.
tim12rob 3 years ago
What you don't seem to understand by your intellectual posturing is that urban consolidation suits many property owners as it increases their property values enormously - that's what it's all about in Sydney. Check out the comments of a 22 year old posted in Part 4 of this video. They are completely at odds with what you are saying about the age & post-war upbringing of Tony Recsei et al. This policy is a complete disaster for young people and just about everyone else, except for speculators.
Wildhiland 3 years ago
Th truth about the rising cost of housing is that it is not about the cost of the house which only goes up slightly with the cost of construction. It is the cost of land that has been driven up to speculative heights by folks who buy for profit and not for use. Ironically the only solution for land speculation is a high tax on land values which both discourages land speculation and drives the cost of land down. I'd rather pay a tax to pay for services than pay huge interest to my banker.
ourearthhome 3 years ago
FHOG Wasn't intended to make housing more affordable, it was a concession given to the building industry to offset the introduction of the GST. It succeeded in stimulating demand and pushed prices through the roof. Hand outs won't bring prices down, supply will, c'mon councils and regulators make it easier to build rather than looking after the building industry, take away obstacles for owner builders and the handyman.
pauloz386 3 years ago
Very good comment. The First Home Owner's Grant (FHOG) has been another contributor to inflating property prices, and it has also led to an increased number of mortgage defaults by allowing people to buy properties that they can't afford. This failed policy of the Howard government is now most likely being replaced by an almost equally daft approach by the Rudd government. Of course neither side of politics really wants to face up to the real issues.
Wildhiland 3 years ago
Nobody has mentioned the deleterious effects brought forth by unchecked sprawl such congestion, pollution, obesity, and (oh yes, dig this big crux) the strain on water resources!
Who needs reservoirs for drinking when one can't go without keeping those lawns brilliantly green and those cars sparkling clean.
machinesbreathe 4 years ago
Please look at Part 3 of this video for a response to this question on water usage. Urban consolidation is not good for the environment. More people crammed into a smaller space does not result in environmental benefits. This is a totally misleading argument.
Wildhiland 4 years ago
Nuck tuck, nech tech, the next future technology will determine our fate.
No one has agreed on anything for the last three hundred million years, the age of Saskatchewan's potash mines.
YourHomeTown 4 years ago
Urban Consolidation is essential, because it is grossly inefficient to continuously spread suburbs out (increasing the need of cars). What we need is for apartments and denser houses to be more desireable. The problem that is almost directly linked is land value. How do you design an apartment building that can be affordable to live in, and have the feel of a house?
Although we'd all like to live in a house there is simply not enough space for everyone.
bejamrof 4 years ago
There is no space problem. Residential property is .4 of 1% in Australia. There are vast well irrigated areas in the northern states. That other countries would die to have.
guslingus 4 years ago
Totally misleading. By saying only 0.4% of land is built on you make it sound like 99.6% is still available, in fact only a tiny amount of land in Aus could be built on - the rest has no water, roads, is too far away from existing areas, or desert.
spacetweek 2 years ago
You are being miss-leading yourself. We are not saying that at all. In any case, the 3500 kilometre eastern coastal strip from Cairns to Melbourne is quite habitable with the result that many people are being forced to move to these areas. The area south of Brisbane is one of the fastest growing in Australia. As well, during the recent drought weve been running short of water in Sydney & Melbourne. Urban densification will not solve that problem, it will only put it off for a few more years.
Wildhiland 2 years ago
1.
You know even if you only inculde the costal strip from Melbourne to Cairns thats still a MASSIVE amount of Land we have,
you have a look at the size of Sydney on google Earth, it would fit hundreds probably thousands of times into the green coastal habital strip all up the east coast
Steven2690 2 years ago
You are absolutely correct. The land shortage argument is completely laughable in relation to Australia. Unfortunately, its young people like you that are being made to suffer because of this speculative greed, and totally misguided urban consolidation fairytale. Wherever possible, every Australian should have the opportunity to live in their own home. Investment should be encouraged in productive industries, not in rampant tax payer subsidised property speculation.
Wildhiland 2 years ago
Very true
I am praying Kevin Rudd gets rid of the grant, because all its doing is inflating prices.
I heard on the news a few nights ago that the real estate institute or something like that are saying prices will start to climb next year in Sydney
PFFT
In the middle of a recession when people loose their jobs
Yeah and Pigs Fly
Steven2690 2 years ago
2.
Take a country like the Netherlands that has 16million people compared to our 22million[almost the same]
The netherland is less than half the size of Tasmania [which is also all green with no desert] Now they have a shortage of land.
There is NO shortage of land in this country trust me you are kidding yourself if you think there is
Steven2690 2 years ago